Lowman v. City of Asheville

49 S.E.2d 408, 229 N.C. 247, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 457
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 22, 1948·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Denny, J.

Ordinarily whether or not the trial judge grants a motion to make a pleading more definite, as provided in G. S., 1-153, is within his discretion. And where there is nothing on the record, as in the instant case, to indicate the motion was denied as a matter of law, it will be presumed the judge denied it in his discretion. Brown v. Hall, 226 N. C., 732, 40 S.E. (2d), 412; Cody v. Hovey, 219 N. C., 369, 14 S. E. (2d), 30; Wolf v. Goldstein, 192 N. C., 818, 135 S. E., 39; Hensley v. Furniture Co., 164 N. C., 148, 80 S. E., 154. It would seem the motion had some merit, but such orders entered in the discretion of the trial judge are not reviewable upon appeal. Cody v. Iiovey, supra: Brown v. Hall, supra. Even so, we know of no reason wiry the defendant, if it so desires, may not apply for a bill of particulars, as provided in G. S., 1-150. Building Co. v. Jones, 227 N. C., 282, 41 S. E. (2d), 747; Lucas v. Railway Co., 121 N. C., 506, 28 S. E., 265.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lowman v. City of Asheville, 49 S.E.2d 408, 229 N.C. 247, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 457 (N.C. 1948).

49 S.E.2d 408 (Lowman v. City of Asheville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phelps v. McCotter
112 S.E.2d 736 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Lutz Industries, Inc. v. Dixie Home Stores
88 S.E.2d 333 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)